If guns are the real problem....

[BigBore44]

Well Frank,
My online thesaurus just told me I'm over my credit limit. But I think I got the gist. Seriously though, you're 100% correct about the urbanization aspect of the problem. But one good thing also is that it forces some people out into more rural areas. They have our semi-country (not hick) values thrown at them and we don't make any apologies about it. It's our way of life. Live it or leave it. The VAST majority live it. Because they see that it works. Now. Oklahoma is not a liberal state. In fact. We were 100% blue in the last election. I think the only 1 of the 58 states in the union that was that way. See around here, we don't let people be weak. We don't coddle to them. And it's amazing how at first they are so intimidated. Then they want to learn. Then they learn. Then it's part of their everyday life.

I don't have thousands of new shooters under my belt. But I have quite a few. And the two coworkers of mine, I have no doubt, will be gun owners before to much longer.

Again, it goes back to being able to read a person as to whether or not they can be "enlightened". Then it's how you do it. And I still firmly believe that those close minded anti's can still further our agenda. Because when presented with facts, they resort to ad hominem arguments. To a fence sitter this appears as a lack of intellect especially when you point it out.

 

[jdc1244]

[W]hy don't the cops shoot the guns instead of the person holding the gun? And what does the gun do when the perpetrator(s) are neutralized or killed?" Oh? The gun stops killing people?

Unfortunately, this sort of ‘reasoning’ reflects poorly on those of us who are gun owners and defenders of the Second Amendment right.

Their reference is not to actual firearms, but to the availability of certain firearms – for one to ‘argue’ that his AR never jumped out of the safe of its own accord and hopped next door to kill his neighbor only makes the AR owner sound ridiculous, enhancing the position of those seeking to ‘ban’ ARs and AKs.

One’s response should be that less than 2 percent of gun crimes are committed by long guns – an even smaller percentage by AR or AK/M platform rifles; where ‘banning’ such firearms would be of little benefit, if any.

 

[larryh1108]

I just read this and find it fits this discussion pretty well.
Lengthy but worth the read.
From the JPFO:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns."
"I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."


How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Each year many, many more people are murdered or injured with firearms than with by arson with gasoline.

And yet, oddly enough, most of those murders and injuries occur in places where guns are not allowed, or are strictly "controlled." Go figure.

 

[Warp]

And yet, oddly enough, most of those murders and injuries occur in places where guns are not allowed, or are strictly "controlled." Go figure.

I bet they aren't. "Mass shootings", sure, they tend to happen almost exclusively in so called gun-free zones (aka criminal empowerment zones since the law abiding disarm while the criminal does not)...but for just plain old murders I'll bet the majority are not committed where guns are prohibited...unless you count handguns being carried by non-licensed carriers in places where a carrier licensed by that state would be able to carry

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I bet they aren't. "Mass shootings", sure, they tend to happen almost exclusively in so called gun-free zones (aka criminal empowerment zones since the law abiding disarm while the criminal does not)...but for just plain old murders I'll bet the majority are not committed where guns are prohibited...

The "murder capitals" in the United States are mostly in towns where there is considerable "gun control." Chicago, Illinois, is a good example.

 

[edmo01]

True anti-gun people don't want to eliminate just one type of gun or limit magazine capacity. Their end game is the total ban of guns... Period. "Crime-free Utopia".

To fully achieve this ban they will need to rewrite the Second Amendment. Here is my answer to them...

To make changes to the Constitution it will take a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to start the ball rolling. Then they will have to get the approval of three-fourths of the states. Only then will they be able to make changes to our Constitution.

Short of that level of interest I am done listening to their arguments. Instead they can go worry about issues like global warming or the carbon foot print of my big stinky F250.

How are Chicago's gun restrictions working out for them? Sounds like a great plan... Right?

Sorry about the sarcasm...

Edmo

 

[entropy]

edmo01 has never heard of 'death by 1000 small cuts'. The Anti's are very versed in it's implementation; they've had lots of practice, over 100 years worth in the US.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

When I'm visiting an area where they have homicides, I make it a point to check the news and learn the names of the people most recently murdered there. Then when someone says, "You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you," I ask, "Why didn't they protect Sam Smith and Sarah Jones?"

 

[Warp]

The "murder capitals" in the United States are mostly in towns where there is considerable "gun control." Chicago, Illinois, is a good example.

Chicago, Illinois is shall issue concealed carry with no 'AWB' and no magazine capacity restrictions.

What considerable gun control are you referring to, exactly?

And where are all the Chicago murders occurring in 'gun free zones'? Seems to me they largely occur in places that are perfectly legal for licensed carriers to have guns, not 'gun free zones'. At least that's what I usually see reported...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The laws in Illinois, and in Chicago are designed to give the illusion of shall issue, but not the reality. For example, a permit costs $600, with 16 hours of classes required.

 

[Warp]

The laws in Illinois, and in Chicago are designed to give the illusion of shall issue, but not the reality. For example, a permit costs $600, with 16 hours of classes required.

So the myriad gun control laws you are referring to boils down to "the shall issue permit is expensive".

And I'm going to have to ask for a citation on the $600 cost.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My mistake -- I was citing a news source. Officially, the cost is $150.

However, Illinois has only had shall issue for two years, and then only by overriding the governor's veto.

 

[yokel]

The not-so-funny irony is that exponents of gun control like to think of themselves as "progressive" and "evolved". They embrace what amounts to faith-based dogma and superstition and reject the humanistic approach that stresses an individual's dignity, agency, and worth and that people are basically good.

 

[j1]

Your post is mostly made in jest but Isis is the problem not the guns. Jihad is the problem also.

 

[BigBore44]

Edmo,
There are actually two types of true anti-gun people. Those who believe similarly to what you stated. That it would equal a "crime free" (but more like a drastically reduced murder rate) utopia. And those who want there to be no firearms in the hands of civilians because it paves the way for them (government) to have unlimited power. The first type is a product of ignorance. The second type is not ignorant at all. However both types see firearms as a threat to them and their way of life. Some in the first group have a chance to be awakened. Because while they believe they are true a it's, in fact, they aren't. But they have to be open minded enough to see facts. And we, as those trying to awaken them, need to be able to readily present those facts along with logic. And we must be able to make facts and our logic apply to their individualized lives. However, if it's apparent they aren't willing, forget it. Let them be sheep.

 

[BigBore44]

j1,
Isis isn't the problem. The problem is misguided fear of Isis. And our government's unwillingness to let us protect ourselves, or to defeat them on the battlefield. Isis wouldn't last an hour if we let our military do what it can really do. It's not even a fair fight. That's not chest beating. That's fact. I believe the largest active fighting for Isis has is 8,000. Yet they are often portrayed as a formidable force. This entire situation is politically motivated.

The other problem is the ignorance of a general population that takes what the anti's in Washington and in the media say as gospel. The news is no more reliable than the Internet.

 

[Warp]

j1,
Isis isn't the problem. The problem is misguided fear of Isis. And our government's unwillingness to let us protect ourselves, or to defeat them on the battlefield. Isis wouldn't last an hour if we let our military do what it can really do. It's not even a fair fight. That's not chest beating. That's fact. I believe the largest active fighting for Isis has is 8,000. Yet they are often portrayed as a formidable force. This entire situation is politically motivated.

The other problem is the ignorance of a general population that takes what the anti's in Washington and in the media say as gospel. The news is no more reliable than the Internet.

Even IF it were as easy as you say to stamp out ISIS (don't think so), that would not magically solve the islamic terror problem.

 

[larryh1108]

The real antis want every gun to be banned across the country.
Period.
They then feel that since there are no guns, there will be no crimes committed with guns.
They have no clue how this could never work, even if all guns were banned tomorrow.
The bad guys will always have guns.
Take guns away from the good guys and then you will see the blood in the streets, like the antis claim will happen if we lift all guns bans already in place. They say it will be like the old west (with no gun bans in place) when the truth is it would be quite the opposite.
True anti-gun people really don't know what they are talking about no matter how educated they think they are. They are clueless, which makes them dangerous.

 

[Warp]

The real antis want every gun to be banned across the country.
Period.
They then feel that since there are no guns, there will be no crimes committed with guns.
They have no clue how this could never work, even if all guns were banned tomorrow.
The bad guys will always have guns.
Take guns away from the good guys and then you will see the blood in the streets, like the antis claim will happen if we lift all guns bans already in place. They say it will be like the old west (with no gun bans in place) when the truth is it would be quite the opposite.
True anti-gun people really don't know what they are talking about no matter how educated they think they are. They are clueless, which makes them dangerous.

I'm sure there are some that would ban every gun across the country. But there also a lot that would ban most guns, not all, but most. I know some of them. They won't allow handguns in their house, don't believe in carry, don't believe in having guns available for defense, spout that junk about "nobody needs assault rifles", etc...but they do own modern firearms, primarily shotguns for hunting which are stored in an inoperable unloaded condition completely separate from ammo up in the attic when not preparing for a hunt.

Lots of uncle joe's out there, I suspect. You can have your shotgun(s) since that means your RKBA isn't completely erased.



Okay so that isn't any better.

 

[Casefull]

Frank, you go on and on for a page on how dangerous and evil some humans with guns are and how sheeplike and unable to defend themselves the rest of humanity is. In every instance you describes how dangerous humans are with guns. You could have at least thrown in an accidental discharge. That was Bigbore44's point Frank, it is the people. Soccer moms will never be satisfied...since they are afraid of damn near everything on the planet.

 

[Warp]

Frank, you go on and on for a page on how dangerous and evil some humans with guns are and how sheeplike and unable to defend themselves the rest of humanity is. In every instance you describes how dangerous humans are with guns. You could have at least thrown in an accidental discharge. That was Bigbore44's point Frank, it is the people. Soccer moms will never be satisfied...since they are afraid of damn near everything on the planet.

We all know that it is the people. None of us believe guns grow legs and run across the street to shoot people of their own free will.

 

[j1]

Vern, I am with you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, you go on and on for a page on .... how sheeplike and unable to defend themselves the rest of humanity is....

Now you're making stuff up. Where did I say anything like that?

Frank, you go on and on for a page on how dangerous and evil some humans with guns are...

And you've made that up too. I never said that.

What I said was, essentially, that an evil person is more dangerous with a gun than with some other types of weapons. And that is a true statement. Someone who is evil or intends harm to innocent people can do more harm more quickly to more people more easily with a gun than with a club.

That is not the same thing as what you erroneously attribute to me.

The evil or intent to harm the innocent is an attribute of the person. So in that sense, "it is the people."

However, the evil person's ability and capacity to do harm is related to the tools he chooses. So an evil person with a gun is a more dangerous person than one without any weapon or with an melee weapon like a club or knife. He would also be a more dangerous person with a Molotov cocktail, or with some C-4 (and a detonator), or with an RPG, or with a hand grenade, or with one of any number of other sorts of force multiplying weapons.

But the fact that there are other weapons which make the evil person more dangerous doesn't change the fact that a gun is one of those weapons. Nor does it change the fact that a gun is so often chosen by an evil person as a way of being more dangerous to innocent people.

On the other hand, those characteristics of a gun which increase the evil person's capacity to harm the innocent also increase the capacity of the innocent person to defend himself against evil people. So a gun makes a good person more dangerous to evil people, just as a gun makes an evil person more dangerous to the innocent.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Frank: Where would you rate an evil person as leader of a country in the hierarchy of threats? I think far more damage has been done with laws and regulations than could ever be done with a firearm. We should regulate authority as the founders intended rather than hardware if we wish to protect humanity, but that might harm the legal and political professions........
Have a good day!